The Final Beijing Opinions are out
Yesterday the ICC Banking Commission circulated the Final Opinions from their Annual meeting in Beijing.
This time the “package” included 5 Opinions. 3 of those where revised compared to the Draft Opinions – and for 2 of them there were no changes.
An overview of the 5 new Opinions are as follows:
TA886rev – Invoice issued by the beneficiary?
The query relates to an LC that requires all documents to be issued in English. However, documents in other languages are acceptable provided they also bear a text in English.
The presented invoice had no letterhead or other designated field indicating the name of the issuer of the invoice. However, at the bottom of the invoice a stamp bearing Chinese characters (only) was visible – presumably including the name of the beneficiary in Chinese.
The question is if this is a valid reason for refusal.
TA887 – Issuer of performance bond
The query relates to an LC that includes the following in SWIFT Field 46A: “ONE (1) PHOTOCOPY OF UNCONDITIONAL AND IRREVOCABLE PERFFORMANCE BOND ISSUED AND SENT VIA SWIFT BY A REPUTABLE VIETNAMESE BANK OR INTERNATIONAL BANK HAVING A BRANCH OFFICE IN VIETNAM […]”
The presented performance bond was issued via SWIFT by a bank in Europe. That bank has a branch in Vietnam. This however, is not stated in the performance bond. The question is if the presented document is acceptable.
TA888rev – UCP 600 article 16 (c) (iii) (b) modified
The query includes four examples of LC wordings attempting to modify UCP 600 article 16 (c) (iii) (b), all around the same theme. One of the examples are:
IF DOCUMENTS PRESENTED UNDER THIS L/C ARE FOUND TO BE DISCREPANT AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED PRESENTER'S DISPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE DISCREPANT DOCUMENTS PRIOR TO RECEIPT OF THE APPLICANT'S WAIVER OF DISCREPANCIES, WE SHALL RELEASE THE DOCUMENTS TO THE APPLICANT WITHOUT NOTICE TO THE PRESENTER AND WE WILL HAVE NO LIABILITY TO THE PRESENTER IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH RELEASE. [Emphasis added]
The questions asked are:
* Once the issuing bank agrees to accept or otherwise waive discrepancies, must it honour?
* If the issuing bank releases a presentation to someone other than the presenter (without their consent) must the issuing bank honour?
* Is it standard banking practice to disregard these types of clauses?
TA889rev – Consignee conflict between B/L and EUR1
The query relates to a presentation including:
* Bill of lading issued to order of ABC Bank
* EUR1 certificate containing a consignee field marked “to order”
The presentation is refused citing the following discrepancy:
“Consignee of the EUR1 certificate is inconsistent with the consignee of b/l.”
The question is if this is a valid discrepancy.
TA890 – B/L not indicating Agent
The query relates to a presentation including a Bill of lading signed by:
“ROH on behalf of HAP – the Carrier”
The presentation is refused citing the following discrepancy:
“Bill of Lading: Signing capacity not specified”
The question is if this is a valid discrepancy.
During the ICC Banking Commission meeting there were comments to all of the Opinions. Especially the first TA886rev created quite some discussion. That one will be addressed at a later stage.
Already now reviews of the new Opinions are now in lcviews premium – duly linked to relevant articles and paragraphs.
Kind regards
Kim